RUNNING HEAD: Capital Punishment: Moral, Effective, or Barbaric?

Capital Punishment: Moral, Effective, or Barbaric? Debra Johnson PHI103 Informal Logic Instructor: Philip Bence July 1, 2013

Capital Punishment Capital Punishment: Moral, Effective, or Barbaric?

Public support for capital punishment has eroded across the nation, largely because Americans are ambivalent. Many think that capital punishment is acceptable, but they are apprehensive about innocent people being executed. As the political debate of the past two decades centered on wrongful convictions and death row exonerations, to a greater extent, more Americans judged capital punishment as blatantly immoral and unfair. In 2012, one hundred seventy-two people were executed regionally in the U.S. Proponents maintain that capital punishment is an effective deterrent to criminals who contemplate the commission of a capital offense. On the contrary, criminals are not afraid of capital punishment. The less that capital punishment can lawfully be used, the more it will cease to deter capital crimes at all. I Capital Punishment Has Split the Country in Two One of the more controversial issues in America today is the capital punishment. According to (Jeffrey M. Jones, 2012) of the Gallup News, Some Americans tend to believe the capital punishment is applied fairly in this country, though a substantial number believes it is not. Nearly half of Americans say the capital punishment is not imposed often enough. American support for the capital punishment plateaued to the low 60s in recent years, after several years in which support was losing ground. Sixty-three percent now favor the capital punishment as the punishment for murder, comparable to 61 percent in 2011, and 64 percent in 2010. Support for capital punishment is higher this year. (Jones, 2012).

Capital Punishment II Over half of the Country Believes Capital Punishment Is Unfairly Applied

The Gallop poll reflects that a little over half of Americans believe the capital punishment is applied fairly in this country, while 40% say it is applied unfairly. The new Gallup data reveal many differences by subgroup in regard to the fairness of the capital punishment. While 58 percent of whites believe it is applied fairly, the majority of non-whites, 54 percent, believe it is not. Similarly, 63 percent of conservatives say the capital punishment is applied fairly while 56 percent of liberals say it is applied unfairly. A majority of those with post-graduate educations say the capital punishment is applied unfairly, but a majority of every other educational group believes it is used in a fair manner. Furthermore, while a majority of each age group believes the capital punishment is applied fairly, those between the ages of 18 and 29 are much more likely to express this view. (Jones, 2002). III Retributivist Theory - an Eye for an Eye Immanuel Kant (17241804) a model of the Retributivist theory of punishment did not assert the only appropriate policy or theory of criminal justice that supports the punishment of criminals in retribution for the harm they inflicted. Kant did not limit the value of punishment to Retributivist matters. "Punishment," he wrote, can have as its justification only the guilt of the criminal. However, all other uses of punishment, such as rehabilitation, or deterrence, use the criminal merely as a means." (Kant, 1785, Metaphysics of Morals, 6:331). Once the guilt was determined, Kant did not deny that something useful could be drawn from the punishment. (Zalta, 2012).

Capital Punishment In Retributivist theory, criminal guilt is required for punishment. The appropriate type and amount of punishment is also determined by the crime itself. This is the traditional heart of the ancient injunction "an eye for an eye". Kant supported this measurement for punishment. All other measurements brought into consideration elements besides severe justice that would measure the usefulness of possible penalties of deterrence. He recognized that "like for like" is not always possible to the letter, and he believed that the justice required be used as the rule for specific judgments of punishment. (Zalta, 2012). The Retributivist theories of punishment led to Kant's insistence on capital punishment. He argued that the only equitable punishment equivalent to death, the nature of inflicted harm, was death. In (Kant, 1785, Metaphysics of Morals, 6:331), Kant rejected claims "characteristic of a social contract in pure reason in me as opposed to the source of the crime myself as capable of criminal acts. The latter person wills the crime but not the punishments, but the former person wills in the abstract that anyone who is convicted of a capital crime will be punished by death." Therefore one and the same individual both commits the crime and endorses the punishment of death." (Kant, 1785, Metaphysics of Morals, 6:331). This resolution reflects the claim that individuals can be forced into a civil condition and that entering the civil condition is compulsory even if one's actual choice might be to remain outside of it. IV Moral Objections to Capital Punishment Presents Life-Life Tradeoffs Despite the rise in capital offenses, heated debates about the effectiveness of capital punishment as retribution justice loom. Subsequently, scholars and legal experts pose

Capital Punishment

contradicting perspectives and theoretical constructs for examining the appropriateness of capital punishment for major crimes. Capital punishment refers to the lawful punishment of death for a wide range of offenses. Capital punishment has been used extensively since the ancient civilizations. A serious commitment to the sanctity of human life might compel and not forbid capital punishment. (Banner, 2002). Moral objections to the death penalty often depend on distinctions between acts and omissions. The known problems with capital do not argue in favor of abolition, because the world of homicide bears those same problems in a more severe form. The prevalent failure to realize the life-life tradeoffs involved in capital punishment may depend on thought processes that do not treat 'statistical lives' with the significance that they deserve. (Banner, 2002). Arguments in conflict with capital punishment claim that the "cruel and unusual punishment" clause of the US constitution (Eighth Amendment) and moral relativism (the concept that if it is wrong to kill then it is absolutely not comparatively wrong). Most religious bodies in the USA oppose capital punishment. Proponents of the capital punishment argue that

in general, the benefits outweigh the disadvantages. (Banner, 2002). One of the strongest arguments for the capital punishment is based on the concept of deterrence of crime. The theory is based on the perception that criminals are deterred if the consequences of a crime outweigh the benefits. Researchers claim that humans are basically aware of the differences between rights and wrong and as such the commission of crime is a free choice involving choices based on consequences of actions. As such, the proponents argue that death penalty is an effective deterrence to criminals contemplating committing a capital offense. (Banner, 2002).

Capital Punishment Another argument for death penalty is the perception that it eliminates villains and habitual killers from the society who would otherwise continue to harass people, that when a criminal is executed he no longer poses any threat. This follows the logical argument that the execution of killers and other radical offenders contribute to safer societies. (Banner, 2002). Capital punishment is based on cost implications. Confining criminals to prisons and

rehabilitation centers involves expenditure of taxpayers money. The costs of capital punishment are paltry in comparison to the colossal expenditure of public funds and the impact of release of such people to the societies. Arguments that criminals released from incarceration may lead to panic, fear, and the recruitment of other criminals that may not be quantifiable in terms of costs. (David, 2006). V Critics Argue That Capital Punishment Is Unreasonable and Serves No Purpose in Deterring Crime Critics argue that capital punishment is unreasonable and serves no purpose in deterring crime. The claims of some opponents of capital punishment are based on the cost implications of capital punishment. They maintain that the cost of capital punishment and the ensuing legal proceedings for parole offset the costs of jail sentence. The opponents argue that the capital punishment does not deter killers. Criminologists agree that death penalty does not deter homicidal behaviors. However, opponents also base their arguments on the comparison of murder rates in states with capital punishment and those without it. For instance, the south that has over 80% capital punishment also has the highest number of murder cases. (Banner, 2002).

Capital Punishment

Opponents hold that capital punishment only increases the tendency for criminal behavior as perpetrators kill their victims to eliminate traces of evidence. However, there is general agreement that deterrence is a vital aspect of any punishment method and that capital punishment has the potential to deter planned murder and homicide. Other arguments against the death penalty for murderers are based on ethical and moral considerations. (Banner, 2002). VI Opponents Argue That Capital Punishment Is Cruel and Unusual Punishment Disproportionate To Any Crime Opponents argue that murder is cruel and an unusual punishment that is disproportionate to any crime. Kantian and religious ethical perspectives have a general perception that no one has the rights to take the life of another regardless of the crime. However, a critical analysis reveals that under capital offense, man is man with a universal scope. There are no rights to be violated for the criminals. Therefore, the 'rights approach' has no bearing. Furthermore, the use of 'moral basis' for arguing against capital punishment could also be dependent on fundamental perceptions within the society and the distinction between crime and punishment. (Delfino & Mary, 2007). Some scholars argue that the proper measure of justice is certainty, swiftness and proportionality of the punishment regime. Obviously, capital punishment is to serve the purpose of retribution or deterrence. Conclusion The primary basis for capital punishment is deterrence of crime. Indeed, the retributive justice approach of capital punishment is proportionate punishment to murderers. Moreover, proponents argue cost implication, social anxiety, and fear to argue for capital punishment. Critics base their arguments on rights ethics, Kantian moral and ethical principles as well as the

Capital Punishment cost implications. "A critical analysis reveals that the death sentence is an effective punishment that serves intended purposes of deterrence and retribution." (Delfino & Mary, 2007, p.70). Governments must expedite efficient legal proceedings in capital punishment to increase certainty, swiftness and proportionality of justice. Criminals are not afraid of capital punishment. The less that capital punishment can lawfully be used, the more it will cease to deter capital crimes at all.

Capital Punishment References: Banner, S. (2002). The Death Penalty: An American History. American Council of Learned Societies. New York: Harvard University Press. (eBook). Retrieved from: http://www.worldcat.org/title/death-penalty-an-americanhistory/oclc/244341493?referer=di&ht=edition

David, S. (2006). Elements of Justice. New York: Columbian University Press. Retrieved from: http://www.davidschmidtz.com/david-schmidtz/books/elements Delfino, M. & Day, Mary E. (2007). Death Penalty USA 2005 2006. Tampa, Florida: Better MoBetter Publishing. Retrieved from: http://www.abebooks.com/servlet/BookDetailsPL?bi=3086135123&searchurl =an%3Ddelfino%2Bmichelangelo%2Bday%2Bmary%2Be%26bsi%3D0%26ds%3D30 Jones, J. M. (2012) Slim Majority of Americans Say Capital punishment Applied Fairly. Support for the capital punishment higher than in recent years. Gallup News Service. Copyright 2013 Gallup, Inc. Retrieved from: http://www.gallup.com/poll/6031/slimmajority-americans-say-death-penalty-applied-fairly.aspx Hadfield, G. K., Weingast, B. R. (March 2013). Law without the State Legal Attributes and the Coordination of Decentralized Collective Punishment Journal of Law and Courts, (Vol. 1) pp. 3-34. The University of Chicago Press. Retrieved from: http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/668604 Edward N. Zalta (ed.) (Summer, 2012). Kant's Social and Political Philosophy. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved from: http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2012/entries/kant-social-political